Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join
Date: 2019-09-03 21:10:50
Message-ID: 20190903211050.GA19536@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujita-san, amul,

CFbot complains that Fujita-san submitted a patch that doesn't apply,
which makes sense since the necessary previous patch was only referred
to without being resubmitted. I suggest to always post all patches
together with each resubmission so that it can be checked automatically
by the cf bot:

I'm not clear on who the author of this patch is, now. Also, I'm not
sure what the *status* is. Are we waiting for Fujita-san to review this

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-09-03 21:13:51 Re: amcheck verification for GiST
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-09-03 20:56:38 Re: Adding column "mem_usage" to view pg_prepared_statements